|
On December 22 2008 16:10 rushz0rz wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2008 16:05 EmeraldSparks wrote:How else do you expect them to fight a bunch of guerillas? With less air strikes? Send in troops A better idea. and have them die? Yes, sometimes when war happens, people die. Yeah, but, I'm sure the Canadian Army is reluctant to send in troops and have them die needlessly to a bunch of terrorists. Even the Americans are. Hence the solution is to bomb the spots they are in. Honestly Look at history. How successful was operation rolling thunder during the Vietnam war. It's not like we're bombing factories or anything that would cripple a terrorist organization.
|
On December 23 2008 13:29 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2008 13:08 kazokun wrote:On December 23 2008 12:23 Jibba wrote:It is never ok to kill anyone under any circumstances, ever. Once you understand this, you too will be considered a rational and moralistic being. Uh... don't go all hippie on our asses. I find it disturbing that people assume there's something wrong with what I said. You're a sniper
Do you think I would ever become a sniper if I feel it's wrong to kill people?
|
United States22883 Posts
Then you're the parking lot security guard on patrol.
|
On December 23 2008 13:42 Jibba wrote:
Then you're the parking lot security guard on patrol.
And what are you asking me to do as a parking lot security guard again?
|
United States22883 Posts
Pull out your gun and kill someone, because killing is sometimes admissible and certainly rational.
|
because a parking lot security guard carries a gun, right? If they did, I probably wouldn't be one.
|
Besides kazokun, your idea of never killing anyone doesn't even at a minimum make the exception of self defense.
Its not a viable argument unless you soften it.
|
On December 23 2008 14:03 Savio wrote:
Besides kazokun, your idea of never killing anyone doesn't even at a minimum make the exception of self defense.
Its not a viable argument unless you soften it.
What do you not understand about Kantian ethics? Do not kill means do not kill. It is never the ends but the means by which things should be ethicised.
|
So should soldiers kill? Its their duty right?
According to Kant, the concept of “motive” is the most important factor in determining what is ethical. More specifically, Kant argued that a moral action is one that is performed out of a “sense of duty.”
For Kant, a moral action is not based upon feelings or pity. Nor is it is not based on the possibility of reward. Instead, a moral action is one based on a sense of “This is what I ought to do.”
Same for police officers, etc.
EDIT:
“To preserve one’s life is duty” (Groundwork…, section 1) says Kant, urging us to follow a maxim authorizing violent action only when our own life is threatened.
Like I said, unless you soften your statement, your argument is not viable.
|
On December 23 2008 11:01 IdrA wrote:
its questionable to call those who harbor and support them innocent in the first place.
You're assuming that all civilians are supporting and harboring terrorists. This is of course ridiculous.
|
United States24682 Posts
On December 22 2008 16:05 EmeraldSparks wrote:With less air strikes? A better idea. Yes, sometimes when war happens, people die.
I don't have time to read the rest of this thread so I don't know how much this has been discussed, but I just want to comment on this one post.
A huge problem in the history of modern combat has been the situation where a group of soldiers is in foreign territory (say a village) and is being attacked by enemy insurgents who are mixing in with crowds of civilians. Historically, the soldiers eventually lose it and just open fire on the crowds of innocent people (there are Americans in jail because of this situation). You want to avoid this situation at all costs, and while I'm not saying our current situation with air strikes is necessarily good or bad, I am definitely saying that the suggestion to simply send in ground troops is very dangerous.
|
On December 23 2008 14:18 Savio wrote:So should soldiers kill? Its their duty right? Show nested quote + According to Kant, the concept of “motive” is the most important factor in determining what is ethical. More specifically, Kant argued that a moral action is one that is performed out of a “sense of duty.”
For Kant, a moral action is not based upon feelings or pity. Nor is it is not based on the possibility of reward. Instead, a moral action is one based on a sense of “This is what I ought to do.” Same for police officers, etc. EDIT: Show nested quote +
“To preserve one’s life is duty” (Groundwork…, section 1) says Kant, urging us to follow a maxim authorizing violent action only when our own life is threatened.
Like I said, unless you soften your statement, your argument is not viable.
Kant argued that a moral action is one that is performed out of a “sense of duty.”
We do all have a duty to not kill each other.
yet, as you pointed out...
“To preserve one’s life is duty”
Here is the one problem with Kantian ethics which is hard to evade.
Which duty is stronger? Kant gives us two different duties that are good on their own, but when there comes a situation where these two duties conflict, as when you must kill someone to save your own skin, Kant does not lay out a means by which to select the more important duty.
It is up to you to decide which duty you feel is more important. Yes, you can attempt to omit yourself from any situation where there is a potential for violence (and that is good) , but if you ever come to a point of kill or be killed, it is up to you to decide which duty you are going to break.
Kant reasoned for self-preservation, I myself am compelled to reason towards moral preservation.
This is what I feel, your feelings can be different and still fit under the bounds of Kantian ethics.
|
On December 23 2008 11:52 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2008 11:22 IdrA wrote:On December 23 2008 11:16 KissBlade wrote:On December 23 2008 11:01 IdrA wrote:
they are 'pests'. people who choose to blow themselves up in public places give up their humanity. they are scum who should be exterminated.
its questionable to call those who harbor and support them innocent in the first place.
You were good until you got up to here. how can you consider them anything else? they fully believe theyre going to live in paradise with 70 virgins for blowing themselves up and taking out as many infidels as they can win them and nothing can shake that belief. pest and scum is a flattering term for something like that, its downright scary. you cant deal with an enemy like that, whos indoctrinated into such blind unshakeable hatred that theyre happy to kill themselves to do damage to you. Blaiming "faith" is the easy way out of the problem but it doesn't actually identify what's going on. It's a severe type of socialization, fueled by extreme poverty and embarrassment, usually started when they're young children or bored teenagers. Peer pressure and nationalism are also a big part of it, as are financial benefits or threats for the individual's family. It also happens to be extremely effective. Air raids are not. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dying_to_WinShow nested quote +Ch. 6: Occupation and Religious Difference
“[T]he taproot of suicide terrorism is nationalism” not religion (79). It is “an extreme strategy for national liberation” (80). This explains how the local community can be persuaded to re-define acts of suicide and murder as acts of martyrdom on behalf of the community (81-83). Pape proposes a nationalist theory of suicide terrorism, seen from the point of view of terrorists. He analyzes the notions of occupation (83-84), homeland (84-85), identity (85-87), religious difference as a contributor to a sense of “alien” occupation (87-88), foreign occupation reverses the relative importance of religion and language (88-92), and the widespread perception of the method as a “last resort” (92-94). A statistical demonstration leads to the conclusion that a “linear” rather than “self-reinforcing spiral” explanation of suicide terrorism is best (94-100). However, different future developments of the phenomenon of suicide terrorism are very possible, and more study of the role of religion is needed (101).
there are poor and downtrodden people all over the world. i dont see the dregs of any other society blowing themselves up in mass. i find it hard to believe that a society built entirely upon a religion that encourages such martyrdom and holy war and what not is coincidentally producing suicide bombers.
|
On December 23 2008 12:58 closed wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2008 11:22 IdrA wrote:On December 23 2008 11:16 KissBlade wrote:On December 23 2008 11:01 IdrA wrote:
they are 'pests'. people who choose to blow themselves up in public places give up their humanity. they are scum who should be exterminated.
its questionable to call those who harbor and support them innocent in the first place.
You were good until you got up to here. how can you consider them anything else? they fully believe theyre going to live in paradise with 70 virgins for blowing themselves up and taking out as many infidels as they can win them and nothing can shake that belief. pest and scum is a flattering term for something like that, its downright scary. you cant deal with an enemy like that, whos indoctrinated into such blind unshakeable hatred that theyre happy to kill themselves to do damage to you. Do you know that you sound just like them? This actually made me raise the question - are you Jewish by any chance?
im an atheist
what exactly did i say that was untrue?
|
On December 23 2008 12:11 kazokun wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2008 11:01 IdrA wrote:On December 23 2008 08:12 kazokun wrote:On December 23 2008 02:55 IdrA wrote:On December 22 2008 23:51 kazokun wrote:On December 22 2008 19:14 IdrA wrote:On December 22 2008 18:01 kazokun wrote:On December 22 2008 17:53 IdrA wrote:On December 22 2008 17:48 kazokun wrote:On December 22 2008 17:22 IdrA wrote:
[quote]
how so
Look, there's two pov's that you can take. There's the utilitarian pov, and the argument for that basically boils down to the US having to bomb Afghanistan because killing terrorists (even with some civilian casualties resulting from it) means less deaths in the future. This meets the utilitarian view of the least harm for the least amount of people. Then, there's the Kantian pov, and the argument for that is that the actions, not the consequences that result from those actions, are what is most important. In the mind of a deontologist/kantian-ethicist it does not matter that you are potentially saving lives by killing terrorists (and harming civies in the process), what matters is that you are nixing your morality and have decided to kill people. Once again, the end result is not important to a deontologist, only the means by which it is reached. I hold the second point of view, of the deontologist. I believe it is just plain wrong to kill, and that it must never be done because doing so means you are violating your own moral code, and that is much worse than not doing anything. well thats pretty stupid the end results are what actually affect the real world. if your inaction causes more deaths than your action would it doesnt matter if you have the moral high ground, you've done a disservice to the world. I do not see how using irrational (unethical) actions to quell irrational actions is doing a service to the world. But yeah, judging by the way you responded, I am going to guess you're a full-on utilitarian? I just wanna ask, to what morally vacant ends are you willing to see America reach to assure a victory in Afghanistan? Would you be willing to bomb a village, with ample warning beforehand of course, just to kill some terrorists? Man, it's on your head, not mine, bud. the actions are neither irrational or unethical. inaction that causes harm is just as bad as action that causes harm, therefore it would be unethical to not act in a situation where not acting causes more damage than acting. if there were terrorists setting the next 9/11 in motion hiding in the village, hell yes. are you saying you wouldnt? i take back what i said, i dont see how you can claim the moral high ground in this situation. obviously 9/11 is an extreme example, but yes if i believed allowing the terrorists to survive would cost more lives than the collateral damage of the bombing, i would. So you're saying I'm immoral for not supporting the death of innocents? How can you support actions that fuel the motives of the terrorists more? Come dusk, the Afghans know that the bombs dropped on their village were American. To whom are they to put the blame? How will you be able to tell them that their deaths were for their own benefit? These people see the United States as a threat, not an ally. Why are we allowed to impose on their lives when they cannot do the same to us? For every village that the government bombs there is going to be at least one child who looks at the burning pile of rubble and body parts, forever compelled to go to any lengths to destroy the entity who destroyed his or her home. Each bomb plants the seeds for dissent. The bigger the bomb, the more helpless they will feel and the more drastic measures they will take to retaliate. Why support violence when it only breeds more violence? Even from a Utilitarian point of view, this course of action seems rash and improvised. The true Utilitarian would not advocate these useless forms of violence, so it is assumed that those who support the American style of diplomacy are themselves rash. Then we must assume that the American course of action was not born out of calculated necessity but out of the anger and frustration stemming from the tragic loss of life on September 11th. It is out of this blind rage that nearly a decade of disastrous foreign policy was enacted. We have treaded onto an immense minefield that we now don't see ourselves getting safetly out of. We have done this to ourselves because we could not think beyond the cold hard statistics of "getting even". We have traded our morality for the insanity of attrition. "All is well as long as they're dead and we're not," one would say. "Kill them all." It's wrong, unjustifiable, and heinous. the only will we are imposing on them is that they are not allowed to impose their will on us, which seems perfectly fine to me. we arent telling them how to live their lives or who to pray to, just that they cant blow themselves up in our buildings if we make a comic about allah. bombing villages does indeed create potential terrorists, as does allowing those children to grow up in the islamic terrorist environment. you seem to miss the point that there is no good solution when dealing with an enemy like this. we cant simply pack up and go home and expect them to ignore us. it is a war of cultures that cannot coexist as they stand, we either beat them into submission and force them to become acceptable members of the world, or we live under the constant threat of another bin laden. i personally dont think thats acceptable, and i dont see them voluntarily changing any time soon. We aren't telling the civilians how to live their lives, sure, but we are telling them how they're going to die. We are also telling them that their tribal way of government, which had been their way of life for hundreds if not thousands of years, is wrong and that democracy is the only suitable way to govern in a land who's people have no clear understanding of what it even means to be partial to everyone. We perceive their hard way of life as undesirable and thus do not see them as equal to us. You seem to have missed the point that we have made them into the enemy through making revenge politics a reality. The American people are too proud and stubborn to even try to understand the plight of people who aren't them. we're telling them that if they cant control the terrorists in their midst theyre going to die because those terrorists will otherwise kill us. i agree with you that its not right to force democracy on them if they dont want it, but we're not pushing democracy in favor of the tribal governments, but in favor of the totalitarian regimes that ruled the countries before we invaded. they are already an enemy because of their ideology, in some cases the motive may be revenge ideology, that doesnt mean the action that results from it is necessarily wrong. look at iraq, blair and bush use scare tactics with the wmd's to support taking down saddam. it was wrong of them to do that, but still right to attack.
We need to pack up and go home BECAUSE we came in and wrecked the place. I do not think that the Afghani people would hate us even more if we left. I believe that their animosity towards us would in fact cool down. Yeah, maybe in fifty years they might like us again if we leave them alone, so we must.
ya sounds plausible when exactly did we drop bombs on the homes of the 9/11 hijackers?
"It is a war of cultures that cannot coexist as they stand, we either beat them into submission and force them to become acceptable members of the world, or we live under the constant threat of another bin laden." -IdrA
Do you know how mad that sounds? People are not like animals, you cannot beat a person into obedience, you cannot pummel little villages into the ground and have their people accept you as their rulers. They'll hate you every second of their lives for it, and rightfully so. If you want people to change, you have to let them change. Any other way just grounds their belief that you're imposing your will onto them. I don't know how that doesn't make sense to you.
once again the only will we're imposing is that they arent allowed to impose theirs on us. theyre not going to change. they have no desire to change. unfortunately they do have the desire to either subjugate or destroy the rest of the world. i dont really see how that attitude can be allowed.
I see you as a person of results. You want to hear at the end of the day that things got done and that's it. You don't really care how it's done, you just want it done. Fast and easy. You also prefer to shift the blame onto other people. Perhaps that is the reason why you can legitimize killing innocents, and perhaps you will forever be incapable of seeing that as wrong. If you have no qualms with that, then perhaps all is lost.
I hate how you say there is no good solution when "dealing" with these people, as if they were some sort of pest that you need to exterminate.
so its ok when innocents are killed by the terrorist attacks, but not in attempts to kill the terrorists? they are 'pests'. people who choose to blow themselves up in public places give up their humanity. they are scum who should be exterminated. its questionable to call those who harbor and support them innocent in the first place. "so its ok when innocents are killed by the terrorist attacks, but not in attempts to kill the terrorists?" It is never ok to kill anyone under any circumstances, ever. Once you understand this, you too will be considered a rational and moralistic being. The "us vs them" argument is propaganda bullshit to make you believe there is a definite and present threat to humanity in this world that needs to be extinguished.
sucks. life isnt fair. by the choice of the islamic terrorists people are going to die, 'we' get to choose who. seems obvious to me that forced into that choice you have to choose the lesser evil. which is exactly what i was saying.
Show nested quote +
"theyre not going to change. they have no desire to change. unfortunately they do have the desire to either subjugate or destroy the rest of the world. i dont really see how that attitude can be allowed. "
"they are 'pests'. people who choose to blow themselves up in public places give up their humanity. they are scum who should be exterminated."
Wow... that is terrible.
k you can keep being a little girl and being horrified by reality or you can explain yourself and be part of the big boys discussion. your choice.
|
On December 23 2008 11:35 Jibba wrote:Here's the problem, IdrA. First, it's easy to abuse anything "for the greater good" (see: PATRIOT Act.) Second, our intelligence is and will always be extremely imperfect. The cost/benefit analysis for "possibly killing terrorists in caves" fails, because we are terrible at predicting the cost (see: Afghanistan 1979/Somalia 2005) and the benefits are unpredictable as well. Our weapons are extremely accurate, but the decision making is not. The collateral damage we've caused is enormous and hasn't been effective and it may not even be particularly beneficial. The Taliban is essentially a greater threat to Afghanis than it is to the US. Like Saddam, their major intent is to avoid rocking the boat in international waters and retain control of the country. If they, or anyone for that matter, wanted to attack the United States, it could be done fairly easily. Two rednecks in Oklahoma did a pretty good job, and they chose a terrible target. Numerous independent studies have shown that we're not safer from any type of attack than we were 10 years ago. Remember, who trained the 9/11 pilots- a Florida flight school. If you want to make the case that we should do it for humanitarian reasons, then fine. Afghanis don't deserve the miserable treatment the Taliban will inflict, just like Iraqis didn't deserve what Saddam gave them. Still, this is an even more difficult battle to win than Iraq is, because we have too few troops (Soviets failed with 600,000), little internal support (this is an anarchic/tribal territory), ridiculously mountainous borders to control and there's nothing to cover the costs. Afghanistan has deserts, mountains, rocks and a few opium/rose fields- it's a shitty place to live. Not only will the conflict hemorrhage us financially, but it's also taken our attention away from the nearly failed state next door, that actually has nuclear weapons. It'd be great if we could punish the groups that attacked us, and one could even argue the government has an obligation to attempt to, but eventually you have to realize that it was a failed state that drained an empire, and it's currently a failed state that's draining an empire. BTW, here's a nice article on what's going on. http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/1219/p01s01-wosc.html
you're right its impractical, but there is no good solution to the middle east at the moment. as you said right now their main goal is upsetting the international scene as little as possible so they can regain control of their country. as much as it sucks to agree with the bush administration, its better to fight them over there than over here.
it seems to me it would be far more dangerous to withdraw and let them restabilize when at the moment theyre forced into hiding in villages and caves while we control the cities. i dont really know how effective the bombing raids are, it may be that they should be stopped for practical reasons. but i was arguing that they were justified on moral grounds, given that the terrorists were capable of greater potential harm than what we would be doing.
|
On December 23 2008 16:45 IdrA wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2008 12:11 kazokun wrote:On December 23 2008 11:01 IdrA wrote:On December 23 2008 08:12 kazokun wrote:On December 23 2008 02:55 IdrA wrote:On December 22 2008 23:51 kazokun wrote:On December 22 2008 19:14 IdrA wrote:On December 22 2008 18:01 kazokun wrote:On December 22 2008 17:53 IdrA wrote:On December 22 2008 17:48 kazokun wrote:
[quote]
Look, there's two pov's that you can take.
There's the utilitarian pov, and the argument for that basically boils down to the US having to bomb Afghanistan because killing terrorists (even with some civilian casualties resulting from it) means less deaths in the future. This meets the utilitarian view of the least harm for the least amount of people.
Then, there's the Kantian pov, and the argument for that is that the actions, not the consequences that result from those actions, are what is most important. In the mind of a deontologist/kantian-ethicist it does not matter that you are potentially saving lives by killing terrorists (and harming civies in the process), what matters is that you are nixing your morality and have decided to kill people. Once again, the end result is not important to a deontologist, only the means by which it is reached.
I hold the second point of view, of the deontologist. I believe it is just plain wrong to kill, and that it must never be done because doing so means you are violating your own moral code, and that is much worse than not doing anything. well thats pretty stupid the end results are what actually affect the real world. if your inaction causes more deaths than your action would it doesnt matter if you have the moral high ground, you've done a disservice to the world. I do not see how using irrational (unethical) actions to quell irrational actions is doing a service to the world. But yeah, judging by the way you responded, I am going to guess you're a full-on utilitarian? I just wanna ask, to what morally vacant ends are you willing to see America reach to assure a victory in Afghanistan? Would you be willing to bomb a village, with ample warning beforehand of course, just to kill some terrorists? Man, it's on your head, not mine, bud. the actions are neither irrational or unethical. inaction that causes harm is just as bad as action that causes harm, therefore it would be unethical to not act in a situation where not acting causes more damage than acting. if there were terrorists setting the next 9/11 in motion hiding in the village, hell yes. are you saying you wouldnt? i take back what i said, i dont see how you can claim the moral high ground in this situation. obviously 9/11 is an extreme example, but yes if i believed allowing the terrorists to survive would cost more lives than the collateral damage of the bombing, i would. So you're saying I'm immoral for not supporting the death of innocents? How can you support actions that fuel the motives of the terrorists more? Come dusk, the Afghans know that the bombs dropped on their village were American. To whom are they to put the blame? How will you be able to tell them that their deaths were for their own benefit? These people see the United States as a threat, not an ally. Why are we allowed to impose on their lives when they cannot do the same to us? For every village that the government bombs there is going to be at least one child who looks at the burning pile of rubble and body parts, forever compelled to go to any lengths to destroy the entity who destroyed his or her home. Each bomb plants the seeds for dissent. The bigger the bomb, the more helpless they will feel and the more drastic measures they will take to retaliate. Why support violence when it only breeds more violence? Even from a Utilitarian point of view, this course of action seems rash and improvised. The true Utilitarian would not advocate these useless forms of violence, so it is assumed that those who support the American style of diplomacy are themselves rash. Then we must assume that the American course of action was not born out of calculated necessity but out of the anger and frustration stemming from the tragic loss of life on September 11th. It is out of this blind rage that nearly a decade of disastrous foreign policy was enacted. We have treaded onto an immense minefield that we now don't see ourselves getting safetly out of. We have done this to ourselves because we could not think beyond the cold hard statistics of "getting even". We have traded our morality for the insanity of attrition. "All is well as long as they're dead and we're not," one would say. "Kill them all." It's wrong, unjustifiable, and heinous. the only will we are imposing on them is that they are not allowed to impose their will on us, which seems perfectly fine to me. we arent telling them how to live their lives or who to pray to, just that they cant blow themselves up in our buildings if we make a comic about allah. bombing villages does indeed create potential terrorists, as does allowing those children to grow up in the islamic terrorist environment. you seem to miss the point that there is no good solution when dealing with an enemy like this. we cant simply pack up and go home and expect them to ignore us. it is a war of cultures that cannot coexist as they stand, we either beat them into submission and force them to become acceptable members of the world, or we live under the constant threat of another bin laden. i personally dont think thats acceptable, and i dont see them voluntarily changing any time soon. We aren't telling the civilians how to live their lives, sure, but we are telling them how they're going to die. We are also telling them that their tribal way of government, which had been their way of life for hundreds if not thousands of years, is wrong and that democracy is the only suitable way to govern in a land who's people have no clear understanding of what it even means to be partial to everyone. We perceive their hard way of life as undesirable and thus do not see them as equal to us. You seem to have missed the point that we have made them into the enemy through making revenge politics a reality. The American people are too proud and stubborn to even try to understand the plight of people who aren't them. we're telling them that if they cant control the terrorists in their midst theyre going to die because those terrorists will otherwise kill us. i agree with you that its not right to force democracy on them if they dont want it, but we're not pushing democracy in favor of the tribal governments, but in favor of the totalitarian regimes that ruled the countries before we invaded. they are already an enemy because of their ideology, in some cases the motive may be revenge ideology, that doesnt mean the action that results from it is necessarily wrong. look at iraq, blair and bush use scare tactics with the wmd's to support taking down saddam. it was wrong of them to do that, but still right to attack.
We need to pack up and go home BECAUSE we came in and wrecked the place. I do not think that the Afghani people would hate us even more if we left. I believe that their animosity towards us would in fact cool down. Yeah, maybe in fifty years they might like us again if we leave them alone, so we must.
ya sounds plausible when exactly did we drop bombs on the homes of the 9/11 hijackers?
"It is a war of cultures that cannot coexist as they stand, we either beat them into submission and force them to become acceptable members of the world, or we live under the constant threat of another bin laden." -IdrA
Do you know how mad that sounds? People are not like animals, you cannot beat a person into obedience, you cannot pummel little villages into the ground and have their people accept you as their rulers. They'll hate you every second of their lives for it, and rightfully so. If you want people to change, you have to let them change. Any other way just grounds their belief that you're imposing your will onto them. I don't know how that doesn't make sense to you.
once again the only will we're imposing is that they arent allowed to impose theirs on us. theyre not going to change. they have no desire to change. unfortunately they do have the desire to either subjugate or destroy the rest of the world. i dont really see how that attitude can be allowed.
I see you as a person of results. You want to hear at the end of the day that things got done and that's it. You don't really care how it's done, you just want it done. Fast and easy. You also prefer to shift the blame onto other people. Perhaps that is the reason why you can legitimize killing innocents, and perhaps you will forever be incapable of seeing that as wrong. If you have no qualms with that, then perhaps all is lost.
I hate how you say there is no good solution when "dealing" with these people, as if they were some sort of pest that you need to exterminate.
so its ok when innocents are killed by the terrorist attacks, but not in attempts to kill the terrorists? they are 'pests'. people who choose to blow themselves up in public places give up their humanity. they are scum who should be exterminated. its questionable to call those who harbor and support them innocent in the first place. "so its ok when innocents are killed by the terrorist attacks, but not in attempts to kill the terrorists?" It is never ok to kill anyone under any circumstances, ever. Once you understand this, you too will be considered a rational and moralistic being. The "us vs them" argument is propaganda bullshit to make you believe there is a definite and present threat to humanity in this world that needs to be extinguished. sucks. life isnt fair. by the choice of the islamic terrorists people are going to die, 'we' get to choose who. seems obvious to me that forced into that choice you have to choose the lesser evil. which is exactly what i was saying. Show nested quote +
"theyre not going to change. they have no desire to change. unfortunately they do have the desire to either subjugate or destroy the rest of the world. i dont really see how that attitude can be allowed. "
"they are 'pests'. people who choose to blow themselves up in public places give up their humanity. they are scum who should be exterminated."
Wow... that is terrible. k you can keep being a little girl and being horrified by reality or you can explain yourself and be part of the big boys discussion. your choice.
"k you can keep being a little girl and being horrified by reality or you can explain yourself and be part of the big boys discussion. your choice."
Big dicks, big balls, we're hardcore and we're gonna kill us some muzzies. That's reality. Everyone who disagrees is a woman, mmhmm.
|
given that the terrorists were capable of greater potential harm than what we would be doing.
I really doubt that...
Talibs are no terrorists.
|
"OH MY GOD PEOPLE DIE OH NOES IT CANT BE TRUE"
?
that has no place in a discussion, either explain yourself or get out.
what is wrong with "theyre not going to change. they have no desire to change. unfortunately they do have the desire to either subjugate or destroy the rest of the world. i dont really see how that attitude can be allowed. "
"they are 'pests'. people who choose to blow themselves up in public places give up their humanity. they are scum who should be exterminated."
|
You must be retarded, the afghans haven't done anything to deserve this.
"I dream to see those Muslim pests die horrible deaths. They are scum."
Leave the discussion to people who have brains. Your cocksure way of thinking is so archaic it should be smothered just like every other piece of utilitarian thought-trash. You don't know the half of what you're even saying. Realism, tsh. gb2/practice/
No heart, no brain.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
